Exhibit B
Patterned responses as evidence of an inability to conceptualize in a meaningful or relevant way
In accord with the secular humanism that developed, in part, from a misreading of Margaret Mead, and in part from the adoption of European values-relativism nihilism, as described by Alston Chase, there is an inevitable set of responses elicited, if any sort of reference to values distinction is made.
In this example, the possibility of achievement of things great, of things exemplary, of things noble does not exist as a measure of distinction. The only interpretation to be made is that of an attempt to dehumanize.
The historical basis for this, of course, is understandable given the time line during which it arose -- the post World War II civil rights struggle of the American "black", and the emotional rhetoric permeating that struggle.
When the left adopted that struggle as one of its causes, the amalgam created was to posit that the only distinctions that were ever to be made, would be distinctions intended to dominate by dehumanizing: a tactic seen historically in the case of slavery, the Nazi pogroms, and, of course, the arguments for abortion.
As Alston Chase has pointed out, the result has also been the exclusion for the possibility of distinction based on achievement. Amalgamate this with the secular humanism also in vogue at the time, the displacing of objective right and wrong outside of man, instead placing man at the centrality, and man is elevated -- we are, each of us, the raison d'etre. No distinction may be drawn among us, lest it be to dominate or subjugate, or disparage. So, excellence and achievement are out the window, whether it be us, as individuals, or us as groups -- we are all the same.
One of the immediate consequences is least common denominator humanism is that we are actually reduced -- reduced to things which only need to be fed, clothed, allotted medical care. (And, BTW, the pavement is laid for the foray into globalism.)
All this in marked contrast to the Marxist socialists of old. (There were different forms of "socialism" before Marx, and different forms since, but none of them have demonstrated the impact and effect of the Marxist forms.) Marx and hid disciples spoke of the new man that would be created in a context of socialism, and how different the human condition would be. One might posit that therein lies the basis for its compelling impact among the intelligentsia of the previous age.
That contrasts markedly with the current left, which will be unable to articulate an INTENTIONALITY for socialism.
It also demonstrates, I think, to elucidate my previous proposition, that the current left's post 1960's dogma only allows for patterned responses, precluding, and preventing conceptualization in any meaningful, or relevant way.
